Sports Med (2016) 46:487–502
DOI 10.1007/s40279-015-0451-3
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Effect of Training Leading to Repetition Failure on Muscular
Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Tim Davies1 • Rhonda Orr1 • Mark Halaki1 • Daniel Hackett1
Published online: 14 December 2015
Ó Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015
Abstract
Background It remains unclear whether repetitions leading to failure (failure training) or not leading to failure
(non-failure training) lead to superior muscular strength
gains during resistance exercise. Failure training may
provide the stimulus needed to enhance muscular strength
development. However, it is argued that non-failure training leads to similar increases in muscular strength without
the need for high levels of discomfort and physical effort,
which are associated with failure training.
Objective We conducted a systematic review and metaanalysis to examine the effect of failure versus non-failure
training on muscular strength.
Methods Five electronic databases were searched using
terms related to failure and non-failure training. Studies
were deemed eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: (1) randomised and non-randomised studies; (2) resistance training intervention where repetitions
were performed to failure; (3) a non-failure comparison
group; (4) resistance training interventions with a total of
C3 exercise sessions; and (5) muscular strength assessment
pre- and post-training. Random-effects meta-analyses were
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this
article (doi:10.1007/s40279-015-0451-3) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
& Daniel Hackett
daniel.hackett@sydney.edu.au
1
Discipline of Exercise and Sport Science, Faculty of Health
Sciences, The University of Sydney, 75 East Street,
Lidcombe, Sydney, NSW 2141, Australia
performed to pool the results of the included studies and
generate a weighted mean effect size (ES).
Results Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis
(combined studies). Training volume was controlled in four
studies (volume controlled), while the remaining four
studies did not control for training volume (volume
uncontrolled). Non-failure training resulted in a 0.6–1.3 %
greater strength increase than failure training. A small
pooled effect favouring non-failure training was found
(ES = 0.34; p = 0.02). Significant small pooled effects on
muscular strength were also found for non-failure versus
failure training with compound exercises (ES = 0.37–0.38;
p = 0.03) and trained participants (ES = 0.37;
p = 0.049). A slightly larger pooled effect favouring nonfailure training was observed when volume-uncontrolled
studies were included (ES = 0.41; p = 0.047). No significant effect was found for the volume-controlled studies,
although there was a trend favouring non-failure training.
The methodological quality of the included studies in the
review was found to be moderate. Exercise compliance was
high for the studies where this was reported (n = 5),
although limited information on adverse events was
provided.
Conclusion Overall, the results suggest that despite statistically significant effects on muscular strength being
found for non-failure compared with failure training, the
small percentage of improvement shown for non-failure
training is unlikely to be meaningful. Therefore, it appears
that similar increases in muscular strength can be achieved
with failure and non-failure training. Furthermore, it seems
unnecessary to perform failure training to maximise muscular strength; however, if incorporated into a programme,
training to failure should be performed sparingly to limit
the risks of injuries and overtraining.
123
488
Key Points
This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis
that has directly examined the effect of failure versus
non-failure resistance training on muscular strength.
The review showed that similar gains in muscular
strength can be achieved with non-failure compared
with failure resistance training.
Numerous factors related to exercise prescription
and training experience were shown to influence the
effect of non-failure versus failure resistance training
on muscular strength.
1 Introduction
American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) position
statements have provided recommendations for resistance
training prescription targeting muscular strength [1, 2]. The
most recent position statement recommends that individuals with no resistance training experience (i.e. novices)
perform 1–3 sets of 8–12 repetitions at loads corresponding
to 60–70 % of one repetition maximum (1RM) with
2–3 min recovery between sets/exercises, 2–3 times per
week [1]. For individuals with 6–12 months’ resistance
training experience (intermediate and advanced, respectively), there is a greater emphasis on heavy loads (1–6
repetitions at 80–100 % of 1RM) and increased training
frequency. However, it is expected that when the above
recommendations are followed, performance during sets
will differ between individuals relative to their 1RM,
because of differences in previous training history and
exercises performed [3, 4]. This may result in an individual
being close to or reaching failure (i.e. inability to complete
a repetition in a full range of motion, because of fatigue) at
the completion of a set.
The theory that repetitions leading to failure (failure
training) will elicit superior muscular strength gains,
compared with repetitions that do not lead to failure (nonfailure training) is commonly associated with Arthur Jones,
the founder of Nautilus exercise machines [5]. In his
writing of over 30 years, Arthur Jones has influenced a
number of highly successful athletes (notably, bodybuilders) to use failure training in their programmes. While
it is clear that moderate to heavy loads are required to
achieve increased muscular strength, it is uncertain whether
resistance training should be performed to failure for
muscular strength to be enhanced [6, 7].
123
T. Davies et al.
The rationale for performing resistance exercises to
failure is to maximise motor unit recruitment [6]. While
this has been postulated, it has not been demonstrated
empirically. On the basis of the size principle, during a
typical moderate to heavy set of resistance exercise, lowerthreshold motor units composed of type I slow-twitch or
type IIa fast-twitch muscle fibres are recruited first [8]. As
consecutive repetitions are performed, the lower-threshold
motor units are fatigued, which results in recruitment of
higher-threshold motor units composed predominantly of
type IIx fast-twitch muscle fibres. Once all of the available
motor units have fatigued to a point where the load cannot
be moved beyond a critical joint angle (also known as the
‘sticking point’), failure has occurred [9]. Therefore,
training to failure might enable a lifter to maximise motor
unit recruitment, which may be an important stimulus for
muscular strength development [10–12]. However, there is
evidence that motor unit recruitment can be maximised
without the need to perform resistance exercise to failure.
Sundstrup et al. [13] found that full motor unit activation of
muscles involved in the lateral raise was achieved 3–5
repetitions prior to failure in a group of untrained women.
It has also been hypothesised that failure compared with
non-failure training could lead to greater elevation of
anabolic hormone levels [14], which may contribute to
resistance training-induced changes in muscular strength
[15, 16] although the most recent evidence shows that
elevation of anabolic hormone levels is not required for
significant increases in muscular strength [17].
Several issues have been raised concerning implementation of failure training in resistance training programmes.
It has been suggested that the extra fatigue experienced
from performing sets to failure may increase the risks of
overtraining and overuse injuries [6, 7]. As a result, performing failure training is often advised for more experienced/advanced resistance trainers, because of the
expectation that greater training stresses will be better
tolerated by these individuals during and following a session (i.e. enhanced recovery) [6, 18]. Another potential
concern about failure training is the negative effect it can
have on the ability to stay within a selected repetition range
while using a specific load (i.e. intensity). Performing
consecutive sets to failure with a specific load has been
shown to significantly reduce the number of repetitions that
are possible [19–21]. Therefore, a reduction in load might
be required to enable a lifter to stay within the selected
repetition range, thus minimising large fluctuations in
training volume (sets 9 repetitions), which can affect
muscular strength gains [22–24]. However, increases in
electromyographic (EMG) activity, presumably as a result
of increased motor unit recruitment, have been shown
during resistance exercise with relatively high versus lower
loads performed to failure [25–27]. Furthermore, if the load
Effect of Training Leading to Repetition Failure on Muscular Strength
is decreased substantially below 80 % of 1RM (e.g. as low
as 50 % of 1RM), this also may result in a less effective
stimulus for maximising muscular strength adaptations
[22–24, 28, 29].
On the basis of a subset of studies from a meta-analysis
by Peterson et al. [18], non-failure compared with failure
training was found to be more efficacious for increasing
muscular strength. However, a major limitation of the
meta-analysis by Peterson et al. [18] was that studies using
failure training were compared with different studies that
used a non-failure intervention. Therefore, none of the
included studies directly compared failure and non-failure
training. Recent reviews [6, 7] that included literature
directly comparing failure and non-failure training reported
that relatively few studies have examined failure versus
non-failure resistance training while equating for all variables. In particular, it was emphasised that training studies
examining this practice should equalise training volume to
minimise the effect of this potential confounder on results.
While these reviews are very informative and insightful,
they were not led via an explicit and reproducible protocol
[30]. As a result, it is often not possible to replicate the
findings, and attempts at synthesis may not always be as
rigorous as intended (i.e. there is a potential for bias).
Studies that have examined the effects of failure compared with non-failure resistance training on muscular
strength have used sample sizes ranging from 11 to 15
participants per group [14, 31, 32]. Such sample sizes may
be too small to provide sufficient statistical power for
studies where non-significant differences between the two
training methods are found. Therefore, use of a meta-analytical approach would be useful to overcome the issue of
low statistical power leading to non-significant differences.
The purpose of this review was to use the systematic
review and meta-analytical approach to examine the effect
of failure compared with non-failure resistance training on
muscular strength. Where possible, subgroup analyses were
conducted to determine whether interventions that controlled for volume, training status and exercise type influenced these effects. Information gathered from this metaanalysis will be useful to strength and conditioning coaches
(and athletes) for devising resistance training programmes
to maximise muscular strength development.
2 Methods
2.1 Search Strategy and Study Selection
A search from the earliest record up to and including July
2015 was carried out using the following electronic databases: Scopus, Medline, PubMed, SportDiscus and Web of
Science. The search strategy combined the terms ‘weight-
489
lifting’, ‘weight lifting’, ‘weight-training’, ‘weight training’, ‘resistance-training’, ‘resistance training’, ‘resistance
exercise’, ‘strength-training’ and ‘strength training’ with
‘muscular failure’, ‘muscular exhaustion’, ‘muscular fatigue’, ‘repetition failure’, ‘failure’, ‘repetition exhaustion’,
‘muscular fatigue’, ‘repetition maximum’ and ‘RM’ with
‘nonfailure’, ‘non-failure’, ‘cluster’, ‘cluster-set’, ‘intra-set
rest’, ‘intraset rest’, ‘intra-set rest interval’, ‘intraset rest
interval’, ‘interrepetition rest’ and ‘inter-repetition rest’.
The titles and abstracts of the retrieved articles were
individually evaluated by two reviewers (TD and DH) to
assess their eligibility for the review and meta-analysis.
Disagreements were solved by consensus or, if necessary,
by a third reviewer (RO). The reviewers were not blinded
to the studies’ authors, institutions or journals of publication. Abstracts that did not provide sufficient information
regarding the inclusion criteria were retrieved for full-text
evaluation. The corresponding authors of potentially eligible articles were contacted if there were missing data.
This systematic review and meta-analysis is reported in
accordance with the recommendations and criteria outlined
in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [33].
2.2 Eligibility Criteria
Articles were eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: (1) randomised and non-randomised studies; (2) resistance training intervention where repetitions
were performed to failure (inability to complete the concentric phase of a repetition); (3) a comparison group that
did not perform repetitions to failure; (4) resistance training interventions that included a total of three or more
exercise sessions; and (5) assessment of muscular strength
pre- and post-training.
2.3 Data Extraction
Two reviewers (TD and DH) separately and independently
evaluated full-text articles and conducted data extraction,
using a standardised, predefined form. Relevant data
regarding participant characteristics (age, training experience and body weight), study characteristics (training frequency, exercises prescribed, sets, repetitions, rest between
sets or repetitions, intensity, intervention length and compliance) and muscular strength testing were collected.
Shortly after these extractions, the reviewers crosschecked
the data to confirm their accuracy. Any discrepancies were
discussed in order to find a consensus decision, with disagreements resolved by consultation with a third reviewer
(MH). All studies, except for one, assessed muscular
strength via RM testing [34], while three studies used both
maximal voluntary contraction and RM testing [32, 35, 36].
123
490
It was decided that only RM testing data would be
extracted, to allow for more accurate representation of the
effect of failure versus non-failure training, hence the study
that did not include RM testing was excluded [34]. Additionally, three studies compared a group that performed
failure training with groups performing various types of
non-failure training [36–38]. In this situation, the nonfailure group with a more similar exercise prescription (i.e.
number of repetitions/sets, repetition speed, etc.) to that of
the failure group was included to reduce the risk of confounding the results (e.g. repetition speeds).
2.4 Quality Analysis
The methodological quality of studies meeting the inclusion criteria was assessed using the Downs and Black
checklist [39]. The tool consists of 27 items rated as
‘no = 0, unable to determine = 0, and yes = 1’, and
includes criteria such as a clear description of the aims,
interventions, outcome measurements and participants;
representativeness of participant groups; appropriateness of
statistical analyses; and correct reporting. The checklist
was slightly modified so that the final item (number 27)
relating to statistical power was consistent with the scoring
used for the other items (i.e. from the original score of
‘0–5’ to ‘no = 0, unable to determine = 0, and yes = 1’).
Additionally, an extra item was added to the checklist,
which was ‘exercise supervision’; therefore, the modified
tool consisted of 28 items (see Electronic Supplementary
Material Table S1). The summed scores ranged from 0 to
28 points, with higher scores reflecting higher-quality
research. Scores above 20 were considered good; scores of
11–20 were considered moderate and scores below 11 were
considered poor methodological quality [40]. Studies were
independently rated by two reviewers (TD and DH) and
checked for internal (intra-rater) consistency across items
before the scores were amalgamated into a spreadsheet for
discussion. Disagreements between ratings were resolved
by discussion, or advice was sought from a third reviewer
(MH) if no consensus was reached by discussion.
2.5 Statistical Analysis
All analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Metaanalysis version 2 software (Biostat Inc., Englewood, NJ,
USA), with the level of significance set at p \ 0.05. Effect
size (ES) values were calculated as standardised differences in the means (d). According to Cohen [41], an ES of
0.2 is considered a small effect, 0.5 is a moderate effect
and 0.8 is a large effect. Within-group change in strength
(%) was determined by calculation of the difference
between pre- and post-intervention. The mean relative
percentage change (post- minus pre-training muscular
123
T. Davies et al.
strength, divided by pre-training muscular strength, multiplied by 100) was calculated for the failure and non-failure
groups. Between-study variability was examined for
heterogeneity, using the I2 statistic for quantifying inconsistency [42]. The heterogeneity thresholds were set as
I2 = 25 % (low), I2 = 50 % (moderate) and I2 = 75 %
(high) [42]. To be conservative, a random-effects model of
meta-analysis was applied to the pooled data. A funnel plot
and rank correlations between effect estimates and their
standard errors (SEs), using Kendall’s s statistic [43], were
used to examine publication bias. For rank correlations,
publication bias was suggested when a significant result
(p \ 0.05) was found.
The primary analysis compared the effect of failure
versus non-failure resistance training programmes on outcomes of muscular strength. Subgroup analyses were performed on muscular strength outcomes when training
volume was controlled (volume controlled) and not controlled (volume uncontrolled) in failure and non-failure
groups. Additionally, subgroup analyses were also performed on muscular strength in relation to training status
and exercise type (compound versus isolated exercises;
upper versus lower body exercises). There was one study
that assessed muscular strength with both the bench press
and squat [31] and, in this instance, an analysis was run
with each of these exercises separately. The results of these
two separate analyses were presented as values for when
this bench press (analysis A) and squat data (analysis B)
were included, respectively. For the volume-controlled and
volume-uncontrolled subgroup analyses, the effect of
training status (trained versus untrained) could not be
analysed, because of the small number of studies (n \ 3).
Additionally, the small number of studies meant that the
effect of the exercise type could be analysed only in the
volume-uncontrolled group (n = 3).
3 Results
3.1 Description of Studies
The database searches yielded 2948 potential articles, and
five additional articles were identified from reference lists
(Fig. 1). On the basis of the eligibility criteria, eight articles were included in the systematic review and metaanalysis. There was a total of 199 participants (159 males
and 40 females) aged 18–35 years. Participants had previous resistance training experience (trained, n = 112) or
no prior resistance training experience (untrained, n = 87)
(Table 1).
Of the eight studies that were included, one exercise was
used for the resistance training intervention in four studies
[14, 32, 35, 36], and two or more exercises were used in the
Effect of Training Leading to Repetition Failure on Muscular Strength
491
Fig. 1 Flow diagram.
RM repetition maximum
other four studies [31, 37, 38, 44] (Table 2). Exercise
specifics for the failure group included 1–4 sets of 4–12
repetitions at loads of either 75–92 % of 1RM or 6–10RM.
The non-failure group performed 3–40 sets of 1–10 repetitions at loads of either 75–92 % of 1RM or 6–10RM.
Training volume was controlled in only four of the eight
studies [14, 31, 32, 35]. For the studies with uncontrolled
training volumes, a greater training volume was found in
the failure group in two studies [36, 37] and in the nonfailure group in the other two studies [38, 44]. Sets were
performed with explosive concentric and controlled
eccentric phases in both the failure and non-failure groups
in two studies [31, 37], and in the non-failure group only in
two studies [36, 44], while repetition speed was controlled
(*2 s per contraction phase) in two studies [35, 36] (only
in the failure group in one of these studies [36]). Furthermore, one study had participants perform repetitions at a
preferred cadence [32], while no information about repetition speed was reported for either group in two studies
[14, 38], or for the failure group in one study [44]. Rest
periods between sets ranged from 30 s to *4 min for both
the failure and non-failure groups. Training was performed
2–3 times per week, with interventions lasting for a period
of 6–14 weeks.
Muscular strength was assessed in terms of 1RM in
seven studies [31, 32, 35–38, 44] and 6RM in one study
[14]. A combination of compound exercises (involving
more than one major muscle group) and isolated exercises
(involving only one major muscle group) were used to
assess muscular strength. The bench press was used for
muscular strength testing in three studies [14, 31, 37], squat
in three studies [31, 38, 44], bicep curl in two studies [32,
36] and leg extension in one study [35]. All studies
familiarised participants with the muscular strength test/s.
Additionally, five studies assessed the reliability of the
muscular strength test with r C 0.86 [14, 31, 37, 38, 44].
3.2 Methodological Quality
The mean quality rating score was 19.5 ± 1.7 out of a
possible score of 28 (see Electronic Supplementary Material Table S2). All studies scored 0 (not reported or unable
to be determined) for having a representative sample,
blinding
of
participants/investigators,
recruiting
123
492
T. Davies et al.
Table 1 Characteristics of participants
Study
Subjects
Sex: M/F [%]
Age [years]a
Height [cm]a
Weight [kg]a
Training status
Drinkwater et al. [14]
Failure: n = 15
100/0
17–18
NR
NR
T
Non-failure: n = 11
100/0
17–18
NR
NR
T
Folland et al. [35]
Failure: n = 12
66.7/33.3
22.0 ± 2.0
181.0 ± 9.0
70.0 ± 3.0
UT
Non-failure: n = 11
63.6/36.4
20.0 ± 1.0
176.0 ± 10.0
68.0 ± 7.0
UT
Izquierdo et al. [31]
Failure: n = 14
100/0
24.8 ± 2.9
180.0 ± 1.0
81.1 ± 4.2
T
Non-failure: n = 13
100/0
23.9 ± 1.9
181.0 ± 1.0
80.5 ± 7.4
T
Izquierdo-Gabbaren et al. [37]
Failure: n = 14
100/0
25.4 ± 4.2
181.0 ± 3.7
79.8 ± 5.3
T
Non-failure: n = 15
100/0
26.7 ± 5.7
182.0 ± 4.9
83.2 ± 6.3
T
Kramer et al. [38]
Failure: n = 16
100/0
20.3 ± 1.9
181.5 ± 6.1
78.4 ± 8.4
T
Non-failure: n = 14
100/0
20.3 ± 1.9
181.5 ± 6.1
76.8 ± 10.1
T
Failure: n = 13
Non-failure: n = 14
42.9/57.1
42.9/57.1
18–35
18–35
NR
NR
NR
NR
UT
UT
Rooney et al. [32]
Sampson and Groeller [36]
Sanborn et al. [44]
Failure: n = 10
100/0
23.4 ± 6.6
180.3 ± 5.6
76.9 ± 0.2
UT
Non-failure: n = 10
100/0
23.7 ± 6.2
179.1 ± 7.5
85.0 ± 13.7
UT
Failure: n = 9
0/100
18–20
NR
62.8 ± 9.2
UT
Non-failure: n = 8
0/100
18–20
NR
70.9 ± 12.1
UT
F females, M males, NR not reported, T trained, UT untrained
a
The data are reported as mean ± standard deviation or as a range
participants over the same period of time and randomised
intervention assignment concealment. One out of eight
studies reported on adverse events [35], and actual probability values were reported by only three studies [32, 36,
44]. All studies reported study aims, outcomes, participant
characteristics and confounders. Additionally, in all studies, the treatment was representative of the majority of
participants, there was no data dredging, outcome measures
were accurate and recruitment of participants was from the
same population. The compliance rate was reported in five
studies and was C89 % [31, 35–38]. Only one study [35]
did not randomise participants into intervention groups.
Exercise sessions were supervised in six studies [31, 32,
35, 37, 38, 44], while it is unknown whether sessions were
supervised in one study [36], and no exercise supervision
was provided in another study [14].
3.3 Muscular Strength
3.3.1 Combined Studies (Volume Controlled
and Uncontrolled)
Non-failure training was found to increase muscular
strength by 23.4 and 24.2 % in analyses A and B, respectively, while failure training increased muscular strength by
22.8 and 22.9 %, respectively (Table 3). The differences in
the change in muscular strength between non-failure and
failure had small pooled ES values of 0.34 (95 %
123
confidence interval [CI] 0.06–0.62) and 0.33 (95 % CI
0.06–0.61) for analyses A and B, respectively. A statistically significant effect was found (p = 0.02) and favoured
the non-failure group (Fig. 2). The subgroup analysis found
that the effect was similar when the analysis was restricted
to studies that used compound exercises (n = 5)
[ES = 0.38, 95 % CI 0.03–0.73, p = 0.03 for analysis A;
ES = 0.37, 95 % CI 0.03–0.72, p = 0.03 for analysis B].
Analysis of the types of compound exercises used (squat
versus bench press) led to a non-significant effect (squat:
ES = 0.34, 95 % CI -0.11 to 0.80, p = 0.14; bench press:
ES = 0.36, 95 % CI -0.07 to 0.80, p = 0.10). When only
studies that used isolated exercises were included (i.e.
bicep curl and leg extension), a non-significant effect was
also found (ES = 0.23, 95 % CI -0.24 to 0.70, p = 0.34).
No significant effect was found between failure and nonfailure training (23.2 % versus 18.3 % increases in muscular strength, respectively) when only upper body exercises were analysed (ES = 0.28, 95 % CI -0.07 to 0.62,
p = 0.12). Additionally, no significant effect was found for
failure versus non-failure training when only lower body
exercises were included; however, there was a trend
towards greater increases in muscular strength following
non-failure training (ES = 0.37, 95 % CI 0.03–0.76,
p = 0.07).
Training status was found to produce a significant effect,
with greater muscular strength gains in trained participants
following non-failure training in analysis A (trained:
Effect of Training Leading to Repetition Failure on Muscular Strength
493
Table 2 Training characteristics of studies
Study
Group
Exercise prescription
Volume
controlled
between
groups
Frequency
[days/
week]
Duration
[weeks]
Strength
test
Drinkwater
et al. [14]
Failure
BP: 4 9 6 reps @ 80–105 % of 6RM (rep speed NR), 3 min
50 s rest between sets
Yes
3/7
6
6RM BP
Nonfailure
BP: 8 9 3 reps @ 80–105 % of 6RM (rep speed NR), 1 min
40 s rest between sets
Failure
LE: 4 9 10 reps @ 75 % of 1RM (controlled concentric and
eccentric phases), 30 s rest between sets
Yes
3/7
9
1RM LE
Nonfailure
LE: 40 9 1 rep @ 75 % of 1RM (controlled concentric and
eccentric phases), 30 s rest between sets
Failure
BP: 3 9 6–10RM (explosive concentric/controlled eccentric
phases), 2 min rest between sets
Yes
2/7
11
1RM BP
and SQ
No (F)
2/7
8
1RM BP
No (NF)
3/7
14
1RM SQ
Yes
3/7
6
1RM BC
No (F)
3/7
12
1RM BC
No (NF)
3/7
8
1RM SQ
Folland et al.
[35]
Izquierdo
et al. [31]
SQ: 3 9 6–10 reps @ 80 % of 6–10RM (explosive
concentric/controlled eccentric phases), 2 min rest between
sets
Nonfailure
BP: 6 9 3–5 reps @ 6–10RM (explosive
concentric/controlled eccentric phases), 2 min rest between
sets
SQ: 6 9 3–5 reps @ 80 % of 6–10RM (explosive
concentric/controlled eccentric phases), 2 min rest between
sets
Failure
BP, SCR, LPD, PC: 3–4 9 4–10 reps @ 75–92 % of 1RM
(explosive concentric/controlled eccentric phases), 2 min
rest between sets
Nonfailure
BP, SCR, LPD, PC: 3–4 9 2–5 reps @ 75–92 % of 1RM
(explosive concentric/controlled eccentric phases), 2 min
rest between sets
Kramer et al.
[38]
Failure
SQ, PP, BP, MTP, LC, BR: 1 9 8–12RM
Nonfailure
SQ, PP, BP, MTP, LC, BR: 3 9 10 reps @ 90–100 % of
10RM (rep speed NR), *2–3 min rest between sets
Rooney et al.
[32]
Failure
BC: 1 9 6–10 reps @ 6RM (preferred cadence)
Nonfailure
BC: 6–10 9 1 rep @ 6RM (preferred cadence), 30 s rest
between sets
Sampson and
Groeller
[36]
Failure
BC: 4 9 6 reps @ 85 % of 1RM (2 s elbow flexion/2 s elbow
extension), 3 min rest between sets
Nonfailure
BC: 4 9 4 reps @ 85 % of 1RM (maximal acceleration elbow
flexion/2 s elbow extension), 3 min rest between sets
Sanborn
et al. [44]
Failure
SQ,  SQ, BP, SP, MTP, SS, SLDL, UR: 1 9 8–12RM (rep
speed NR)
Nonfailure
SQ,  SQ, BP, SP, MTP, SS, SLDL, UR: 3–5 9 2–10 reps @
80–100 % of 2–10RM (explosive concentric phase for leg
exercises), rest between sets NR
IzquierdoGabbaren
et al. [37]
 SQ quarter squat, BC bicep curl, BP bench press, BR bent-over row, (F) higher volume completed by the failure group, LC leg curl, LE leg
extension, LPD lateral pull-down, MTP mid-thigh pull, (NF) higher volume completed by the non-failure group, NR not reported, PC power
clean, PP push press, rep(s) repetition(s), RM repetition maximum, SCR seated cable row, SLDL straight-legged deadlift, SP shoulder press,
SQ squat, SS shoulder shrug, UR upright row
ES = 0.37, 95 % CI 0.001–0.75, p = 0.049; untrained:
ES = 0.30, 95 % CI -0.12 to 0.73, p = 0.16). Statistical
significance was just missed in analysis B (ES = 0.36,
95 % CI -0.01 to 0.73, p = 0.06). The heterogeneity of
the effect of failure versus non-failure training on muscular
strength was zero (I2 = 0 %). Both the funnel plot and
Kendall’s s statistic (s = 0.18, p = 0.54 for analysis A;
s = 0.32, p = 0.27 for analysis B) did not reveal publication bias in any study.
123
123
12
14
14
13
–
–
Folland et al. [35]e
Izquierdo et al. [31]d,f
Izquierdo et al. [31]d,g
Rooney et al. [32]
Mean effectf
Mean effectg
16
10
9
–
–
–
Kramer et al. [38]
Sampson and Groeller
[36]
Sanborn et al. [44]
Mean effect
Mean effect, totalf
Mean effect, totalg
–
–
–
48.1 ± 10.5
19.9 ± 3.7
101.9 ± 20.6
96.9 ± 7.6
–
–
12.5 ± 8.4
167.0 ± 20.5
79.0 ± 19.1
85.0 ± 5.8
69.3 ± 8.7
–
–
–
57.9 ± 8.1
25.7 ± 3.8
114.1 ± 18.7
98.4 ± 4.9
–
–
19.5 ± 10.2
198.86 ± 21.0
93.4 ± 21.9
114.0 ± 6.8
76.64 ± 9.9
22.9
22.8
15.9
20.4
29.3
12.0
1.8
29.9
29.7
56.0
19.0
18.2
34.1
10.6
Standard deviation extrapolated from a graph
Includes the bench press data from Izquierdo et al. [31]
Includes the squat data from Izquierdo et al. [31]
f
g
Data extrapolated from graphs
d
e
Post-training value minus pre-training value, divided by pre-training value, multiplied by 100
Statistical significance accepted as p B 0.05
–
–
–
53.3 ± 15.5
22.3 ± 3.6
98.5 ± 27.7
95.8 ± 9.1
–
–
13.9 ± 8.6
168.8 ± 11.9
79.4 ± 8.8
80.0 ± 8.7
67.5 ± 7.24
c
The data are reported as mean ± standard deviation
–
–
–
8
10
14
15
14
15
15
11
11
Pre-training
[kg]a
b
a
CI confidence interval, SE standard error, Std diff standardised difference
14
Izquierdo-Gabarren et al.
[37]d
Volume uncontrolled
15
Drinkwater et al. [14]d
15Volume controlled
Change
[%]b
n
Post-training
[kg]a
n
Pre-training
[kg]a
Non-failure
Failure
Table 3 Summary of the effects of failure versus non-failure training on muscular strength
–
–
–
69.2 ± 11.5
28.6 ± 4.31
123.7 ± 43.2
100.4 ± 7.1
–
–
19.4 ± 12.2
202.8 ± 10.8
90.6 ± 10.6
112.0 ± 6.8
71.0 ± 8.7
Post-training
[kg]a
24.2
23.4
22.0
29.8
28.0
25.6
4.7
26.3
24.8
39.6
20.2
14.2
40.0
5.2
Change
[%]b
0.33 (0.14)
0.34 (0.14)
0.41 (0.21)
0.62 (0.50)
0.12 (0.45)
0.40 (0.37)
0.51 (0.38)
0.27 (0.20)
0.28 (0.20)
0.13 (0.39)
0.13 (0.37)
0.19 (0.37)
0.44 (0.42)
0.41 (0.40)
Std diff in mean: effect size
(SE)
0.06 to 0.61
0.06 to 0.62
0.01 to 0.82
-0.36 to
1.60
-0.32 to
1.13
-0.75 to
1.0
-0.24 to
1.25
-0.12 to
0.65
-0.10 to
0.67
-0.62 to
0.89
-0.6 to
0.86
-0.54 to
0.92
-0.39 to
1.23
-0.38 to
1.19
95 % CI
0.02
0.02
0.047
0.21
0.78
0.28
0.18
0.18
0.15
0.73
0.73
0.61
0.30
0.31
p valuec
494
T. Davies et al.
Effect of Training Leading to Repetition Failure on Muscular Strength
495
Fig. 2 Forest plot of the results
of the meta-analysis. The black
squares and error bars signify
the standardised difference (Std
diff) values in the means (effect
size) and 95 % confidence
interval (CI) values,
respectively. The black
diamonds represent the pooled
effect sizes. df degrees of
freedom
3.3.2 Studies with Volume Controlled
Failure training increased muscular strength by 29.7 and
29.9 % in analyses A and B, respectively, while non-failure training increased muscular strength by 24.8 and
26.3 % in analyses A and B, respectively (Table 3). The
differences in the change in muscular strength between
non-failure and failure had small pooled ES values of 0.27
(95 % CI -0.11 to 0.65) and 0.26 (95 % CI -0.12 to 0.64)
in analyses A and B, respectively. No statistically significant effect was found in analyses A and B (p = 0.15 and
p = 0.18, respectively), although there was a trend
favouring non-failure training (Fig. 2). The heterogeneity
of the effect of failure versus non-failure training on
muscular strength was zero (I2 = 0 %). Both the funnel
plot and Kendall’s s statistic (s = 0.50, p = 0.31 for
analysis A; s = 0.83, p = 0.09 for analysis B) did not
reveal publication bias in any study.
3.3.3 Studies with Volume Uncontrolled
Non-failure training increased muscular strength by
22.0 %, while failure training increased muscular strength
by 15.9 % (Table 3). The differences in the change in
muscular strength between non-failure and failure had a
small ES of 0.41 (95 % CI 0.01–0.82). A statistically significant effect was found (p = 0.047) and favoured the
non-failure group (Fig. 2). When studies that used only
compound exercises were analysed (n = 3), a slightly
greater significant effect was found, favouring the nonfailure group (ES = 0.49, 95 % CI 0.03–0.95, p = 0.04).
The heterogeneity of the effect of failure versus non-failure
training on muscular strength was zero (I2 = 0 %). Both
the funnel plot and Kendall’s s statistic (s = 0.17,
p = 0.73) did not reveal publication bias in any study.
4 Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review with a
meta-analysis to directly investigate the effect of failure
versus non-failure resistance training on muscular strength.
The data show that despite both practices increasing muscular strength, non-failure training was found to be slightly
more effective (i.e. there was a small effect). However, the
effectiveness of non-failure training was influenced by
training volume, training status and exercise type. A significant small effect of non-failure training on muscular
123
496
strength remained only when studies that did not control
for training volume were analysed. For studies that controlled for training volume, there was no significant effect
on muscular strength between failure and non-failure
training. Significant increases in muscular strength were
found following non-failure training in individuals with
previous training experience compared with novices, and
for interventions that used compound exercises compared
with isolated exercises. Additionally, there was a slightly
stronger effect favouring non-failure training compared
with failure training on muscular strength in volume-uncontrolled studies that used only compound exercises. The
heterogeneity of the effects for all meta-analyses was equal
to zero, suggesting that all of the studies examined the
same effect. Despite no publication bias being found, the
methodological quality of the included studies was only
moderate, with little information provided on adverse
events to allow a comment on the safety of these resistance
training practices.
4.1 Combined Studies
A wide range of morphological [45] and neurological [46]
factors contribute to increases in muscular strength following resistance training. An increase in the cross-sectional area of skeletal muscle fibres, which is regarded as
the primary adaptation to long-term resistance training, can
lead to greater force production via promotion of an
increase in the number of cross-bridges arranged in parallel
(preferential type II fibres) [47, 48]. Some other morphological adaptations that may contribute to increases in
muscular strength include hyperplasia, changes in fibre
type, muscle architecture, myofilament density and the
structures of connective tissue and tendons [49]. While
training-induced muscle hypertrophy is considered a slow
process, significant changes have been found over relatively short training periods of 8–12 weeks [50–53], similar to the length of the interventions included in this review
(6–14 weeks). Unfortunately, only one of the included
studies assessed the cross-sectional area of the trained
muscle, with an increase of *11.3 % being found following failure and non-failure training, with no significant
difference between groups [36]. Three other studies
assessed changes in lean body mass (determined via skinfold measures) and showed either a decrease or a small
increase (*2 %) following training [31, 37, 38]. However,
estimation of lean body mass, especially via skinfold
measures, is not valid for assessing changes in muscle mass
[54].
Muscular hypertrophy appears to proceed in a linear
manner during the first 6 months of training [55], while
substantial neurological adaptations are thought to be
responsible for the rapid increase in strength in the first
123
T. Davies et al.
weeks of training (*4 weeks) [56]. This is supported by
the disproportionately larger increase in muscular strength
than in cross-sectional area during the early stages of
resistance training [50, 57]. It is likely that muscular
strength gains following the resistance training interventions in the studies included in this review were mostly
attributable to neurological adaptations. These adaptations
are related to coordination and learning of an exercise,
which lead to improved activation of the muscles involved
[58, 59]. The force that a muscle exerts ultimately depends
on the number of motor units that are active (motor unit
recruitment) and the rates at which motor units are
recruited (rate coding) [60]. It has been postulated,
although not empirically demonstrated, that motor unit
recruitment can be maximised with failure training, which
may provide a stimulus for greater muscular strength gains
[6]. However, the findings from this review showed that
non-failure training resulted in a 0.6–1.3 % greater muscular strength increase than failure training. Such a small
increase in strength is unlikely to be considered meaningful. For example, it would represent only a 0.6–1.3 kg
increase for a 100 kg bench press. These findings should be
interpreted as meaning that similar muscular strength gains
can be achieved without resistance training that involves
high levels of discomfort and physical effort, as are
experienced with failure training.
Previous studies have shown that as muscle becomes
progressively more fatigued during an exercise, the ability
to maintain a constant force is only partly achieved by
recruitment of additional motor units [61–63]. Additionally, several studies have reported a decline in motor unit
firing rates (rating coding) as a muscle fatigues [64–67].
Therefore, on the basis of the assumption that maximising
motor unit recruitment is of major importance in muscular
strength adaptations, it is possible that failure training
might not be necessary for this to be achieved. This is
supported by findings from a study by Sundstrup et al. [13],
where full motor unit activation of muscle was found to be
achieved 3–5 repetitions prior to failure during a resistance
exercise. For the exercise interventions included in this
review, the non-failure group was no more than five repetitions from repetition failure during sets in six of the eight
studies [14, 31, 36–38, 44]. Consequently, performing
repetitions to the point where the participant was approximately five repetitions away from failure may have
resulted in a level of motor unit recruitment similar to that
achieved by failure training. So it would appear that failure
training compared with non-failure training, when using a
particular load setting, does not lead to further gains in
muscular strength.
Besides the need to attain a certain level of muscular
fatigue to maximise motor unit recruitment, it has been
suggested that relative intensities (i.e. loads) need to be
Effect of Training Leading to Repetition Failure on Muscular Strength
C70 % of 1RM [28, 29]. Both Mitchell et al. [68] and
Schoenfeld et al. [69] found there was no difference in the
muscular hypertrophy response following low versus high
training loads performed to failure. However, these equal
hypertrophic effects did not translate into similar strength
gains, with higher compared with lower training loads
(70–80 % versus 30–50 % of 1RM) proving to be more
efficacious. The lack of a relationship between muscular
hypertrophy and strength gains following low- and highload training to failure may be due to muscle fibre-specific
hypertrophy. For example, low-load training to failure may
result in greater increases in type I muscle fibre size, while
greater increases in type II fibre size may occur from highload training to failure.
The hypothesis for muscle fibre-specific hypertrophy
following training with different loads was formulated by
Schoenfeld et al. [27] on the basis of findings from muscle
activation during low-resistance exercise (30 % of 1RM)
versus high-resistance exercise (75 % of 1RM) to failure.
The results showed that exercising with a low load (30 %
of 1RM) did not maximally activate the full motor unit
pool of the targeted muscle group (i.e. reduced activation
of higher-threshold motor units), compared with a higher
load (75 % of 1RM). Other studies have also found that
greater motor unit activation occurs during failure training
with a higher load (*70 % of 1RM) than with lower loads
(20–50 % of 1RM) [25, 26]. Most of the studies included in
this review used a minimum of 75 % of 1RM (or equivalent), with little difference between the intensities used for
the failure and non-failure groups. Therefore, it seems that
the intensities that were used were sufficient to maximise
motor unit recruitment and would not have confounded the
effects of failure versus non-failure training on muscular
strength.
The speed at which resistance exercise repetitions are
performed has been shown to influence strength adaptations. Munn et al. [70] found that 11 % greater strength
gains occurred when resistance exercises were performed
at fast compared with slow speeds. Both fast and slow
contractions exhibit a similar order of motor unit recruitment (the size principle) [71]. However, the absolute force
level at which a motor unit is recruited has been shown to
vary with the speed of muscle contraction [72]. As the rate
of force development increases, the motor unit recruitment
threshold is shown to decrease, so motor units are activated
earlier. This can result in three times as many motor units
being recruited with faster compared with slower contractions to produce a given amount of peak force [72]. Rate
coding has also been shown to vary with the speed of
contraction, with high instantaneous discharge rates that
decrease thereafter for fast contractions [72, 73], whereas
for slower contractions, discharge rates increase progressively [74]. Furthermore, training studies that have used
497
faster contractions have shown large improvements in the
rate of force development [73, 75, 76]. Only three of the
studies included in this review controlled for repetition
speed [31, 35, 37], which may have affected the results.
However, Sampson and Groeller [36] found similar gains
in muscular strength with failure training at a controlled
speed, compared with non-failure training where maximal
acceleration during the concentric phase was performed.
The non-failure group in that study did have a 30 % lower
training volume, and this may have confounded the results.
4.2 Training Volume
While significant increases in muscular strength can be
achieved with relatively low training volumes, performing
high training volumes has been shown to result in larger
strength gains [22–24]. A criticism of some studies that
have examined failure versus non-failure training is that
training volume was not equalised to minimise the effect of
this potential confounder on the results [6, 7]. However, for
this review, it was decided to not exclude studies on the
basis of whether an attempt was made to control training
volume, provided that the loadings used between intervention groups were similar. For half of the studies that did
not control for training volume (i.e. two out of four studies), there were apparent differences in the numbers of sets
performed between groups [38, 44]. The non-failure groups
performed approximately four sets, whereas the failure
groups performed one set. This was expected to be a
concern on the basis of findings from a meta-analysis
conducted by Krieger [22], where training involving 2–3
sets of resistance exercise was associated with a 46 %
increase in muscular strength, compared with one set. For
the other studies that did not control for training volume,
there were noted differences in the numbers of repetitions
performed during sets (i.e. 2–5 more repetitions were
performed by the failure groups) [36, 37]. Therefore, it
could be assumed that any confounding bias due to training
volume may have been negated by higher training volumes
being distributed equally between the volume-uncontrolled
studies (i.e. higher volume in two failure and two nonfailure studies, respectively).
The findings from our review suggest that differences in
training volume had a confounding effect on muscular
strength. For the volume-uncontrolled studies, there was an
*11.5 % increase in strength in the non-failure groups that
performed more sets (greater training volume), compared
with a *0.8 % increase in strength in the non-failure
groups that performed fewer repetitions (lower training
volume) [36–38, 44]. However, it is difficult to ascertain
whether other factors (e.g. type of exercise, speed of contraction, etc.) contributed to the larger strength gains in the
non-failure groups with the higher training volume from a
123
498
greater number of sets. Taking a conservative approach, it
seems that failure training does not offer any advantage in
terms of maximising muscular strength, compared with
non-failure training.
4.3 Exercise Type
The findings from this review suggest that the effectiveness
of failure versus non-failure training for increasing muscular strength may depend on which exercise is performed.
Compound resistance exercises, which are considered to be
superior to isolated exercises for increasing muscular
strength [77], showed greater strength gains following nonfailure compared with failure training. An explanation for
this result may relate to the increased demands of performing compound exercises compared with isolated
exercises. Compound exercises place greater stress on the
neuromuscular system because of the greater muscle
groups that are stimulated and thus greater loads that are
lifted [1]. As a result of these more demanding exercises,
there is the potential for increased muscle damage and
metabolic stress, and thus greater fatigue, following failure
training.
There is evidence that increases in dynamic 1RM are
disproportionately greater than increases in isometric
strength [59, 78]. This suggests that factors such as learning of a movement/exercise and coordination of the muscle
groups involved play a role in early increases in muscular
strength. It is well known that compound exercises are
more complex than isolated exercises because of the
greater muscle groups and joints involved in the movements. As such, performing compound exercises to failure
may result in development of less efficient movement
patterns and suboptimal postures to generate forces (i.e.
development of poor exercise technique). The results from
the subgroup analysis also showed a trend towards greater
gains in muscular strength with lower body exercise than
with upper body exercise following non-failure training
(p = 0.07). Like the results of compound exercises, this
may have resulted from the increased demands/skill
requirements of lower compared with upper body exercises
and led to lesser muscular strength gains in the failure
group, because of fatigue-related factors.
Greater levels of fatigue, which may result from failure
training, can negatively affect the training volume attained
during an exercise session because of reductions in repetitions or loads during performance of consecutive sets
[19–21]. However, exercise compliance in the studies
included in this review was considered high for the five
studies where this was reported. Therefore, a more probable explanation for the superior strength gains following
non-failure compared with failure training with compound
exercises (and the trend for lower body exercises) may be
123
T. Davies et al.
related to post-session recovery. Participants performing
non-failure training could have recovered faster than participants performing failure training. This may have led
towards a greater rate of progress (i.e. loading and training
stimulus) and adaptation in the non-failure group, and thus
greater strength gains. Furthermore, because of the average
exercise intervention lasting approximately 9 weeks, the
ability to recover and progressively overload following
subsequent training sessions over this relatively short
duration would likely have a positive influence on strength
gains.
4.4 Training Status
It is commonly thought that any benefit derived from
performing failure compared with non-failure resistance
training for developing muscular strength would be
observed in strength-trained athletes [6, 18]. Trained athletes are able to tolerate high training stresses, and it has
been suggested that failure training might provide an extra
stimulus to increase muscular strength [28, 29], since
strength gains tend to slow down or even plateau following
long-term training [77]. However, the findings from this
review showed that trained participants responded more
favourably to non-failure compared with failure training
(*14 and *12 %, respectively), suggesting that regular
failure training may be too demanding for strength athletes.
Ahtiainen and Häkkinen [79] found that strength athletes
compared with non-athletes experienced greater muscle
activation and neural fatigue during high-intensity resistance exercise. In this review, even though failure training
did increase the muscular strength of the trained participants, it appears that too great a training demand may not
optimise muscular strength development. For untrained
participants, the similar increases in muscular strength with
failure versus non-failure training (a *34 % increase in
both groups) suggests that subtle differences in resistance
training prescription may not have a large impact on
muscular strength. This is probably due to the large
strength gains that novices typically experience following a
resistance training programme [18]. However, as a lifter
becomes more experienced and the strength gains are lesser, slight manipulation of training variables, such as failure versus non-failure training, may have a significant
effect.
4.5 Methodological Quality
The quality of the studies included in this review was rated
as moderate on the basis of the Downs and Black checklist
scores [39]. Across the eight studies that were included in
this review, the criteria were fully met for only 12 of the
28 items. The criteria for nine items were met by the
Effect of Training Leading to Repetition Failure on Muscular Strength
majority of the studies (C5); however, for the rest of the
items, these were either minimally met or not met by any
studies. In particular, the reporting of adverse events as a
consequence of the intervention was not reported by any
studies. This information is of major importance for
assessment of whether failure training predisposes lifters to
injuries. Additionally, it would help to inform the scientific
community on whether other factors, such as training status
and type of exercises performed, increase the risks of injury
or overtraining during failure training. The criteria for two
internal validity (bias) items were not met by any study:
(1) attempting to blind the study participants; and (2) attempting to blind the assessors of the main outcomes.
While the methodological quality of the studies included in
this review could have been improved through blinding of
the assessors, blinding of participants in exercise interventions is not possible. Also, there was one internal
validity item where the criterion was not met by any study.
This item asked whether the randomised intervention
assignment was concealed from both participants and
investigators. Failure to meet the criterion for this item
increases the risk that participants may have been allocated
to a more or less appropriate group.
It could not be determined whether the majority of
studies met the criteria for two validity items. If the criteria
for these items were not met, this may have biased the
results of this review. One of these items was whether the
participants were representative of the entire population
from which they were recruited. Thus, there is a possibility
that participants with preconceived thoughts about failure
and non-failure training may have been recruited. The
other item for which the criterion was not met was whether
participants were recruited over the same time period. Not
meeting the criterion for this item increases the risk that a
study was run until a desired conclusion was achieved.
However, despite the concerns over the items for which the
criteria were not met or were unable to be determined,
there is a good possibility that the methodological quality
of the included studies was underestimated. This suggests
that there would be lower risks that reporting, external
validity and internal validity (bias and confounding)
influenced the overall results.
4.6 Strengths, Limitations and Future Directions
The strengths of our review include the systematic nature
of the search, the rigorous nature of the data extraction and
the quality assessment of the studies. Studies that found
non-significant differences between the two training
methods may have had small sample sizes that provided
insufficient statistical power to detect significant differences; therefore, a meta-analysis approach was used to
overcome this issue. Furthermore, the numerous subgroup
499
analyses allowed the effects of many potential confounders, such as training volume, training status and
exercise type, to be examined.
While this review offers quantitative evidence to support
the efficacy of non-failure compared with failure training
for muscular strength development, there are certain limitations that should be discussed. First, the exercise prescription used in the interventions differed slightly between
studies in terms of the number of exercises, repetition
speed, intensity (loads) and rest between sets. Even though
an attempt to address the effects of some confounders was
conducted (through subgroup analyses), there is the
potential that some of the other training variables may have
confounded the results. Also, the level of resistance training experience of the participants varied between studies,
with some participants being experienced at a recreational
level, while others regularly used resistance exercise as part
of their overall training for a team sport. This may have
reduced the ability to generalise findings to athletes where
resistance exercise contributes to a larger portion of overall
training. Finally, half of the studies included in the review
had durations of only 6–8 weeks. Because of the short
duration of these studies, which is considered the minimum
for significant increases in muscular strength [56], the
statistical effect of the interventions may have been
reduced. However, there was no publication bias, which
provides confidence that the interventions were similar.
Therefore, the only difference between the studies was
their power to detect changes in muscular strength following failure versus non-failure training.
The small number of studies that were included in this
review shows that there is a need for further research to
examine the effect of failure versus non-failure training on
muscular strength. It is likely that the small number of ES
values available for some of the analyses had an impact
upon whether a significant statistical effect was reached.
Therefore, this may reduce the ability to generalise the
precise effects of failure versus non-failure training on
muscular strength. For novice and intermediate resistance
trainers (with\12 months’ experience), the findings of this
review suggest that performing sets of an exercise to failure
does not lead to greater muscular strength gains than nonfailure sets. Provided that a load C70 % of 1RM is used,
sets of repetitions can be performed to a point that is close
to failure. The extra physical effort required to perform sets
to failure, as well as the high levels of discomfort, might be
perceived as a stimulus to enhance adaptations associated
with muscular strength. However, when the risk/benefit of
failure training is weighed up in conjunction with the
findings from this review, it seems that non-failure training
would be the preferable training method, at least when
targeting muscular strength.
123
500
T. Davies et al.
Advanced resistance trainers and athletes who use
resistance training as part of their overall training programme should limit the use of failure training on the basis
of the results of this review. Failure training could lead to
greater joint compression, which may increase the risks of
joint damage or injuries. Additionally, if failure training is
performed regularly, this may result in overtraining. Nevertheless, if failure training is to be implemented in a
resistance training programme, restricting its use to selected sets (i.e. the final set) and types of exercises (i.e. upper
rather than lower body) may be important in producing the
desired training effects.
5 Conclusion
This systematic review with meta-analysis demonstrates
that similar increases in muscular strength can be achieved
with failure compared with non-failure resistance training.
Training volume, resistance training experience and type of
exercise were shown to have an impact on muscular
strength following failure and non-failure training. However, the overall results tend to suggest that despite high
levels of discomfort and physical effort following failure
training, non-failure training leads to similar gains in
muscular strength. This information is important to athletes
who regularly use resistance training as part of their overall
training programme, so that the risks of injuries and
overtraining can be reduced. However, caution is warranted over the precise effects of non-failure compared
with failure training on muscular strength, because of
training variables (number of exercises, repetition speed,
etc.) that may have confounded the results.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Funding
review.
No sources of funding were used in the preparation of this
Conflict of interest Tim Davies, Rhonda Orr, Mark Halaki and
Daniel Hackett declare that they have no conflicts of interest that are
relevant to the content of this review.
References
1. Ratamess NA, Evetoch TK, Housh TJ, et al. Progression models
in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2009;41(3):687–708. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181915670.
2. Kraemer WJ, Adams K, Cafarelli E, et al. American College of
Sports Medicine position stand: progression models in resistance
training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2002;34(2):364–80.
3. Richens B, Cleather DJ. The relationship between the number of
repetitions performed at given intensities is different in endurance
and strength trained athletes. Biol Sport. 2014;31(2):157–61.
doi:10.5604/20831862.1099047.
123
4. Shimano T, Kraemer WJ, Spiering BA, et al. Relationship
between the number of repetitions and selected percentages of
one repetition maximum in free weight exercises in trained and
untrained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20(4):819–23. doi:10.
1519/r-18195.1.
5. Smith D, Bruce-Low S. Strength training methods and the work
of Arthur Jones. J Exerc Physiol Online. 2004;7:52–68.
6. Willardson JM. The application of training to failure in periodized multiple-set resistance exercise programs. J Strength Cond
Res. 2007;21(2):628–31. doi:10.1519/r-20426.1.
7. Willardson JM, Norton L, Wilson G. Training to failure and
beyond in mainstream resistance exercise programs. Strength
Cond J. 2010;32(3):21–9. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e3181cc2a3a.
8. Sale DG. Influence of exercise and training on motor unit activation. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 1987;15:95–151.
9. van den Tillaar R, Ettema G. The, ‘‘sticking period’’ in a maximum bench press. J Sports Sci. 2010;28(5):529–35. doi:10.1080/
02640411003628022.
10. Fisher J, Steele J, Bruce-Low S, et al. Evidence-based resistance
training recommendations. Med Sport. 2011;15(3):147–62.
11. Smith RC, Rutherford OM. The role of metabolites in strength
training: I. A comparison of eccentric and concentric contractions. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1995;71(4):332–6.
12. Vandenburgh HH. Motion into mass: how does tension stimulate
muscle growth? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1987;19(5 Suppl):S142–9.
13. Sundstrup E, Jakobsen MD, Andersen CH, et al. Muscle activation strategies during strength training with heavy loading vs.
repetitions to failure. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(7):1897–903.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e318239c38e.
14. Drinkwater EJ, Lawton TW, Lindsell RP, et al. Training leading
to repetition failure enhances bench press strength gains in elite
junior athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(2):382–8. doi:10.
1519/r-15224.1.
15. Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Alen M, et al. Muscle hypertrophy,
hormonal adaptations and strength development during strength
training in strength-trained and untrained men. Eur J Appl
Physiol. 2003;89(6):555–63. doi:10.1007/s00421-003-0833-3.
16. Ronnestad BR, Nygaard H, Raastad T. Physiological elevation of
endogenous hormones results in superior strength training adaptation. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011;111(9):2249–59. doi:10.1007/
s00421-011-1860-0.
17. West DW, Phillips SM. Associations of exercise-induced hormone profiles and gains in strength and hypertrophy in a large
cohort after weight training. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2012;112(7):2693–702. doi:10.1007/s00421-011-2246-z.
18. Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA. Applications of the doseresponse for muscular strength development: a review of metaanalytic efficacy and reliability for designing training prescription. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(4):950–8. doi:10.1519/r16874.1.
19. Willardson JM, Burkett LN. A comparison of 3 different rest
intervals on the exercise volume completed during a workout.
J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(1):23–6. doi:10.1519/r-13853.1.
20. Willardson JM, Burkett LN. The effect of rest interval length on
the sustainability of squat and bench press repetitions. J Strength
Cond Res. 2006;20(2):400–3. doi:10.1519/r-16314.1.
21. Willardson JM, Burkett LN. The effect of rest interval length on
bench press performance with heavy vs. light loads. J Strength
Cond Res. 2006;20(2):396–9. doi:10.1519/r-17735.1.
22. Krieger JW. Single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise: a
meta-regression. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(6):1890–901.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b370be.
23. Marshall PW, McEwen M, Robbins DW. Strength and neuromuscular adaptation following one, four, and eight sets of high
intensity resistance exercise in trained males. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2011;111(12):3007–16. doi:10.1007/s00421-011-1944-x.
Effect of Training Leading to Repetition Failure on Muscular Strength
24. Naclerio F, Faigenbaum AD, Larumbe-Zabala E, et al. Effects of
different resistance training volumes on strength and power in
team sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(7):1832–40.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182736d10.
25. Akima H, Saito A. Activation of quadriceps femoris including
vastus intermedius during fatiguing dynamic knee extensions.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013;113(11):2829–40. doi:10.1007/s00421013-2721-9.
26. Cook SB, Murphy BG, Labarbera KE. Neuromuscular function
after a bout of low-load blood flow-restricted exercise. Med Sci
Sports
Exerc.
2013;45(1):67–74.
doi:10.1249/MSS.
0b013e31826c6fa8.
27. Schoenfeld BJ, Contreras B, Willardson JM, et al. Muscle activation during low- versus high-load resistance training in welltrained men. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2014;114(12):2491–7. doi:10.
1007/s00421-014-2976-9.
28. Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA. Maximizing strength
development in athletes: a meta-analysis to determine the dose–
response relationship. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(2):377–82.
doi:10.1519/r-12842.1.
29. Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Burkett LN, et al. A meta-analysis to
determine the dose response for strength development. Med Sci
Sports
Exerc.
2003;35(3):456–64.
doi:10.1249/01.mss.
0000053727.63505.d4.
30. Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ.
1994;309(6954):597–9.
31. Izquierdo M, Ibanez J, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, et al. Differential
effects of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure
on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains. J Appl
Physiol (1985). 2006;100(5):1647–56. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.
01400.2005.
32. Rooney KJ, Herbert RD, Balnave RJ. Fatigue contributes to the
strength training stimulus. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
1994;26(9):1160–4.
33. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items
for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9, w64.
34. Giessing J, Fisher J, Steele J, et al. The effects of low volume
resistance training with and without advanced techniques in
trained participants. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. Epub 2014
Oct 10.
35. Folland JP, Irish CS, Roberts JC, et al. Fatigue is not a necessary
stimulus for strength gains during resistance training. Br J Sports
Med. 2002;36(5):370–3 (discussion 374).
36. Sampson JA, Groeller H. Is repetition failure critical for the
development of muscle hypertrophy and strength? Scand J Med
Sci Sports. 2015. doi:10.1111/sms.12445.
37. Izquierdo-Gabarren M, De Txabarri Gonzalez, Exposito R, Garcia-pallares J, et al. Concurrent endurance and strength training
not to failure optimizes performance gains. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2010;42(6):1191–9. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181c67eec.
38. Kramer JB, Stone MH, O’Bryant HS, et al. Effects of single vs.
multiple sets of weight training: impact of volume, intensity, and
variation. J Strength Cond Res. 1997;11(3):143–7.
39. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the
assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and
non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol
Community Health. 1998;52(6):377–84.
40. Laframboise MA, Degraauw C. The effects of aerobic physical
activity on adiposity in school-aged children and youth: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Can Chiropr
Assoc. 2011;55(4):256–68.
41. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
New York: Academic Press; 1977.
42. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.
501
43. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank
correlation
test
for
publication
bias.
Biometrics.
1994;50(4):1088–101.
44. Sanborn K, Boros R, Hruby J, et al. Short-term performance
effects of weight training with multiple sets not to failure vs. a
single set to failure in women. J Strength Cond Res.
2000;14(3):328–31.
45. Andersen JL, Aagaard P. Effects of strength training on muscle
fiber types and size; consequences for athletes training for highintensity sport. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010;20:32–8. doi:10.
1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01196.x.
46. Gabriel DA, Kamen G, Frost G. Neural adaptations to resistive
exercise: mechanisms and recommendations for training practices. Sports Med. 2006;36(2):133–49.
47. Jones DA, Rutherford OM, Parker DF. Physiological changes in
skeletal muscle as a result of strength training. Q J Exp Physiol.
1989;74(3):233–56.
48. McDonagh MJ, Davies CT. Adaptive response of mammalian
skeletal muscle to exercise with high loads. Eur J Appl Physiol
Occup Physiol. 1984;52(2):139–55.
49. Folland JP, Williams AG. The adaptations to strength training:
morphological and neurological contributions to increased
strength. Sports Med. 2007;37(2):145–68.
50. Abe T, DeHoyos DV, Pollock ML, et al. Time course for strength
and muscle thickness changes following upper and lower body
resistance training in men and women. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2000;81(3):174–80. doi:10.1007/s004210050027.
51. Garfinkel S, Cafarelli E. Relative changes in maximal force,
EMG, and muscle cross-sectional area after isometric training.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1992;24(11):1220–7.
52. Housh DJ, Housh TJ, Johnson GO, et al. Hypertrophic response
to unilateral concentric isokinetic resistance training. J Appl
Physiol (1985). 1992;73(1):65–70.
53. Tracy BL, Ivey FM, Hurlbut D, et al. Muscle quality: II. Effects
of strength training in 65- to 75-yr-old men and women. J Appl
Physiol (1985). 1999;86(1):195–201.
54. Mijnarends DM, Meijers JM, Halfens RJ, et al. Validity and
reliability of tools to measure muscle mass, strength, and physical
performance in community-dwelling older people: a systematic
review. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013;14(3):170–8. doi:10.1016/j.
jamda.2012.10.009.
55. Narici MV, Hoppeler H, Kayser B, et al. Human quadriceps
cross-sectional area, torque and neural activation during
6 months
strength
training.
Acta
Physiol
Scand.
1996;157(2):175–86. doi:10.1046/j.1365-201X.1996.483230000.
x.
56. Moritani T. Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time course
of muscle strength gain. Am J Phys Med Rehabil.
1979;58(3):115–30.
57. Narici MV, Roi GS, Landoni L, et al. Changes in force, crosssectional area and neural activation during strength training and
detraining of the human quadriceps. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup
Physiol. 1989;59(4):310–9.
58. Rutherford OM. Muscular coordination and strength training:
implications
for
injury
rehabilitation.
Sports
Med.
1988;5(3):196–202.
59. Rutherford OM, Jones DA. The role of learning and coordination
in strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol.
1986;55(1):100–5.
60. Duchateau J, Semmler JG, Enoka RM. Training adaptations in
the behavior of human motor units. J Appl Physiol (1985).
2006;101(6):1766–75. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00543.2006.
61. Adam A, De Luca CJ. Recruitment order of motor units in human
vastus lateralis muscle is maintained during fatiguing contractions. J Neurophysiol. 2003;90(5):2919–27. doi:10.1152/jn.
00179.2003.
123
502
62. Adam A, De Luca CJ. Firing rates of motor units in human vastus
lateralis muscle during fatiguing isometric contractions. J Appl
Physiol (1985). 2005;99(1):268–80. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.
01344.2004.
63. Carpentier A, Duchateau J, Hainaut K. Motor unit behaviour and
contractile changes during fatigue in the human first dorsal
interosseus. J Physiol. 2001;534(Pt 3):903–12.
64. Bigland-Ritchie B, Johansson R, Lippold OC, et al. Changes in
motoneurone firing rates during sustained maximal voluntary
contractions. J Physiol. 1983;340:335–46.
65. Bigland-Ritchie B, Woods JJ. Changes in muscle contractile
properties and neural control during human muscular fatigue.
Muscle Nerve. 1984;7(9):691–9. doi:10.1002/mus.880070902.
66. Christova P, Kossev A. Motor unit activity during long-lasting
intermittent muscle contractions in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol
Occup Physiol. 1998;77(4):379–87. doi:10.1007/s004210050348.
67. Garland SJ, Enoka RM, Serrano LP, et al. Behavior of motor
units in human biceps brachii during a submaximal fatiguing
contraction. J Appl Physiol (1985). 1994;76(6):2411–9.
68. Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, West DW, et al. Resistance
exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic
gains in young men. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2012;113(1):71–7.
doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00307.2012.
69. Schoenfeld BJ, Peterson MD, Ogborn D, et al. Effects of low- vs.
high-load resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy
in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(10):2954–63.
doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000000958.
70. Munn J, Herbert RD, Hancock MJ, et al. Resistance training for
strength: effect of number of sets and contraction speed. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2005;37(9):1622–6.
123
T. Davies et al.
71. Duchateau J, Enoka RM. Human motor unit recordings: origins
and insight into the integrated motor system. Brain Res.
2011;1409:42–61. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2011.06.011.
72. Desmedt JE, Godaux E. Ballistic contractions in man: characteristic recruitment pattern of single motor units of the tibialis
anterior muscle. J Physiol. 1977;264(3):673–93.
73. Van Cutsem M, Duchateau J, Hainaut K. Changes in single motor
unit behaviour contribute to the increase in contraction speed
after dynamic training in humans. J Physiol. 1998;513(Pt
1):295–305.
74. Milner-Brown HS, Stein RB, Yemm R. Changes in firing rate of
human motor units during linearly changing voluntary contractions. J Physiol. 1973;230(2):371–90.
75. Gruber M, Gruber SB, Taube W, et al. Differential effects of
ballistic versus sensorimotor training on rate of force development and neural activation in humans. J Strength Cond Res.
2007;21(1):274–82.
76. Kamen G, Knight CA. Training-related adaptations in motor unit
discharge rate in young and older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci
Med Sci. 2004;59(12):1334–8.
77. Zatsiorsky VM, Kraemer WJ. Science and practice of strength
training. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2006.
78. Dons B, Bollerup K, Bonde-Petersen F, et al. The effect of
weight-lifting exercise related to muscle fiber composition and
muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup
Physiol. 1979;40(2):95–106.
79. Ahtiainen JP, Häkkinen K. Strength athletes are capable to produce greater muscle activation and neural fatigue during highintensity resistance exercise than nonathletes. J Strength Cond
Res. 2009;23(4):1129–34. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181aa1b72.